|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jul 19, 2019 23:48:41 GMT -5
No one has ever considered, there may be more than one blaze. Each blaze is a single object, but there could be several. You apparently are unaware of the many searchers over the years that have thought there are multiple blazes to figure out. (They're wrong IMO, but there have been no lack of them espousing that view.) |
|
|
|
Post by seannm on Jul 20, 2019 10:46:38 GMT -5
All,
Great discussion. Ask yourself this: we generally just try to figure out what or where the blaze is, but maybe we also ought to ask: what is the purpose of the blaze? Is it to simply mark the treasures location or something else? And must we find the blaze in order to find the treasure?
Edit to add: And also thing about his mention that he doesn’t believe that the blaze faces in any of the cardinal directions (paraphrased), so maybe we ought to ask if we can view the blaze from any direction.
Seannm
|
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jul 20, 2019 14:35:23 GMT -5
Hi Seannm: the majority of searchers believe the purpose of the blaze is just as you suggested -- that it's a marker. Thus finding the blaze, to them, is essentially "game over" (to borrow Jake Faulker's opinion) because they think the line "look quickly down" means that the treasure is basically right there. I'm in the minority in believing otherwise on both counts: that identifying the blaze is necessary, but not sufficient to find the treasure, nor does "look quickly down" have anything to do with the physical act of looking down while you're there in the field at said blaze.
|
|
|
|
Post by seannm on Jul 20, 2019 17:00:13 GMT -5
Hi Seannm: the majority of searchers believe the purpose of the blaze is just as you suggested -- that it's a marker. Thus finding the blaze, to them, is essentially "game over" (to borrow Jake Faulker's opinion) because they think the line "look quickly down" means that the treasure is basically right there. I'm in the minority in believing otherwise on both counts: that identifying the blaze is necessary, but not sufficient to find the treasure, nor does "look quickly down" have anything to do with the physical act of looking down while you're there in the field at said blaze. Zap, Forrest had said in an interview video with Douglas and Michael that if one was able to decipher the first few clues they could find the treasure, it may not be easy by not impossible. How many searchers would say that the blaze falls within the first few clues? Seannm |
|
|
|
Post by seannm on Jul 20, 2019 17:21:19 GMT -5
Hi Seannm: the majority of searchers believe the purpose of the blaze is just as you suggested -- that it's a marker. Thus finding the blaze, to them, is essentially "game over" (to borrow Jake Faulker's opinion) because they think the line "look quickly down" means that the treasure is basically right there. I'm in the minority in believing otherwise on both counts: that identifying the blaze is necessary, but not sufficient to find the treasure, nor does "look quickly down" have anything to do with the physical act of looking down while you're there in the field at said blaze. Zap, Forrest had said in an interview video with Douglas and Michael that if one was able to decipher the first few clues they could find the treasure, it may not be easy by not impossible. How many searchers would say that the blaze falls within the first few clues? Seannm But even that above mention statement from Forrest seems somewhat contradictory when compared to the statement he made during the “Lure” interview/ambush: “the clues will lead you to the treasure. And whether it is buried or not you can find it if you can find the blaze as a result of starting with the first clue. That is what you have to do”. Seannm |
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jul 20, 2019 19:03:13 GMT -5
Hi Seannm: the majority of searchers believe the purpose of the blaze is just as you suggested -- that it's a marker. Thus finding the blaze, to them, is essentially "game over" (to borrow Jake Faulker's opinion) because they think the line "look quickly down" means that the treasure is basically right there. I'm in the minority in believing otherwise on both counts: that identifying the blaze is necessary, but not sufficient to find the treasure, nor does "look quickly down" have anything to do with the physical act of looking down while you're there in the field at said blaze. Zap, Forrest had said in an interview video with Douglas and Michael that if one was able to decipher the first few clues they could find the treasure, it may not be easy by not impossible. How many searchers would say that the blaze falls within the first few clues? Seannm Hi Seaanm: he did, but then again Forrest also said at one point that the clues get progressively easier, which we know to be FALSE based on 5+ years of zero clue progress after the first two clues were solved by 2013 (or perhaps earlier). The fact is Forrest doesn't know how easy or hard the clues are -- he can't, because he's the only one who knows the answers, and therefore his opinion is uniquely tainted.
While the blaze is not within "the first few clues" in my book, nor probably in most searchers' minds, we've probably already reached the point where the first few clues HAVE been solved, and yet the treasure is still out there. (Forrest's some may have solved four clues, but he's not certain.) So when Forrest says that if one successfully deciphered the first few clues they "could" find the treasure, that's a lot weaker statement than they "will." In fact, saying "could" is the same as saying nothing. About the only thing one could logically conclude from that statement is that if you CAN'T solve the first few clues, then you can't possibly find the treasure. But we already knew that.
The Lure statement has similar logical loopholes: "And whether it is buried or not you can find it if you can find the blaze as a result of starting with the first clue."
Translation: you won't find it without first finding the blaze, you won't find the blaze without solving the preceding clues in order, and whether the treasure is buried or not will have no impact on your success at finding it. He doesn't explicitly state that solving all the clues up to the blaze *will* undeniably lead to finding the treasure.
|
|
|
|
Post by astree on Jul 21, 2019 7:28:09 GMT -5
.
Agree, zapster. It doesnt seem like SOLVING for the clues gets progressively easier, but maybe following them does, once theyve been identified? Not sure, if that creates a loophole for forrest. This is one of the few statements from forrest that ive got a question mark on.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaphod73491 on Jul 22, 2019 1:01:21 GMT -5
. Agree, zapster. It doesnt seem like SOLVING for the clues gets progressively easier, but maybe following them does, once theyve been identified? Not sure, if that creates a loophole for forrest. This is one of the few statements from forrest that ive got a question mark on. Hi Astree: that's an angle I definitely hadn't considered:
"You have to find out … you have to learn where the first clue is. They get progressively easier after you discover where the first clue is.”
"They" get progressively easier. Hmm, what's the antecedent? "The clues after the first clue" or "learning where the clues are"? And if all or even most of the clues are places to be located on a map, is there even a distinction? In my solution, for instance, a map is required to decipher the third clue because it is a named place -- and a named place that would be impossible to figure out without the map unless you knew the area like the back of your hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Jul 23, 2019 9:02:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by seannm on Jul 23, 2019 9:35:22 GMT -5
Jenny, Good morning, and thank you for posting. Seannm |
|
|
|
Post by Jenny on Jul 31, 2019 14:30:36 GMT -5
Flipside thoughts on the BLAZE:
(Will write up a summary or highlights later in the week)...
|
|
